gregkavarnos wrote:First of all you are posting in the Mahayana section so you must respect the fact that those asking questions in this section want Mahayana answers. This means Sutra.

Number two, I'll take it that you consider yourself within the 1% of Buddhists that know everything. So making statements like the above means that you have done nothing all this time to deal with your Ego-centred pride. This means that you too are merely parroting. Back to the 99% with you young lad!

Number three, sticking "student of Namkhai Norbu" in your signature means nothing at all. You may be a hideously bad student of Namkhai Norbu and in no position whatsoever to be a representative of his teachings (ie you may be doing him a mis-service with your statements here).

And finally, if you have nothing valid to add to this discussion, then maybe you should just not be taking part in it.

The Sutta and Sutra have just a liitle bit more to say than an explanation of emptiness. Just a little.

Well said Greg....it looks like we may have another 'alwayson'....

Last edited by Stewart on Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." "Ani Sutta: The Peg" (SN 20.7), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 29 June 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Perhaps to metion a intellectual assumption of emptiness has purpose, but really does not serve to remove the things that cause us to be where we are in our current state and plight. Our habits which we so attach to.We must of course integrate this thing into ourselves..this understanding...hence meditative and other means.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

Jikan wrote:I'm rebutting your claim that nothing more profound that emptiness is to be found in the Mahayana sutras.

No you didn't.

The potential for a sentient being to become a Buddha is crucially related to the doctrine of emptiness.

Its actually the same thing.

I disagree that they are the same thing, though I grant that the doctrine of emptiness is crucial to the potential for Buddhahood. It's not the only factor. Conditioned phenomena that are not sentient beings do not possess the capacity to become Buddhas, and the Sutras have a great deal to say about this. So, Emptiness is not the sole most important topic, or apex, or summit, of "sutra" doctrine.

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

gregkavarnos wrote:The existence of the two truths/realities is vital to your understanding.

At the ultimate level there is no attacker, victim, weapon, feeling, reaction, they are just labels or conceptions.

At the relative level there is an attacker, victim, weapon, feeling, reaction, they do exist.

The truth though, lies somewhere in between these two.

Yes. That is exactly my problem.

Paul wrote:Being able to function, ie to be caused and to have an effect is a direct consequence of not having a nature. If something wasn't empty, it would be frozen and could neither be created, changed or destroyed.

Imgine an A4 piece of white paper that is by nature a blank A4 white piece of paper. You could not tear it, as to do so would mean it was no longer A4 size - which by nature it must be. You could not write on it, as it is blank and white by nature. You could not burn it, as it would become ashes - but by nature it must remain paper.

So you can see that if something had a nature it would be unable to function. Since appearances are dependant on the cause and effect of other appearances and not a nature, they can arise, change and cease. Emptiness is a mandatory requirement for a universe that can change and function.

Beautiful. I'm saving this.

Jikan wrote:When you stub your toe or break a tooth, it is very convincing. MY FACE IT HURTS. It feels real in a conventional way, even though that reality doesn't hold up to analytical scrutiny. Does the experience of a toothache really correspond to the concept of "toothache"? The tooth itself? is it really "your" tooth? &c. Emptiness is another way to say "dependent origination."

My point: you might say there are two levels of truth-claims to be made about an ordinary phenomenon such as a toothache. (ahem) That there might be something of value in the idea of the two truths when discussing emptiness. yes?

Right. Like what Greg posted about the Two Truths Doctrine. But then where is the middle line between Emptiness and Dependent Origination?

sangyey wrote:This is a good translation of Nagarjuna's 'Commentary On The Awakening Mind' translated by Thupten Jinpa that may be of some relevance.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Emptiness is dependent origination....a fact repeatedley stated by various Madhyamikas over the centuries

This is a view that famously goes back to Nagarjuna himself. Refer to mmk 24:18

Woopsie. That rings a bell now... is seem to recall the Dalai Lama demonstrating it in one of his books... was that the demonstration that is easy going from one to the other but hard going the other way?

Emptiness is technically the same in sutra and Vajrayana for the most part.

But only in Vajrayana you have a chance to move beyond a mere intellectual understanding of emptiness (although this is crucially important as well).

So you believe that no Mahayana practitioners have ever gone beyond an intellectual understanding towards a realisation of emptiness? That they were all waiting for the Vajrayana to come along and point it out to them?

Need I (also) point out that Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka tradition are a Mahayana and Sutra trend? Or maybe Nagarjuna (also) only had an intellectual understanding of emptiness?

Emptiness is technically the same in sutra and Vajrayana for the most part.

But only in Vajrayana you have a chance to move beyond a mere intellectual understanding of emptiness (although this is crucially important as well).

So you believe that no Mahayana practitioners have ever gone beyond an intellectual understanding towards a realisation of emptiness? That they were all waiting for the Vajrayana to come along and point it out to them?

Need I (also) point out that Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka tradition are a Mahayana and Sutra trend? Or maybe Nagarjuna (also) only had an intellectual understanding of emptiness?

Greg, as a Vajrayanan you better get with the program and start espousing the superiority of the Vajra Vehicle! I'd hate to see you cast out of the fold, lost and lonely swimming in a sea of mere Mahayanists

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha